Rajaram Gajanan Gangal & others vs Special Land Acquisition Officer & another

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2000 Supreme(Bom) 905

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
G.D. Patil A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ.
Rajaram Gajanan Gangal others.... Petitioners.
Versus
Special Land Acquisition Officer another.... Respondents.
Civil Writ Petition No. 4153 of 2000, decided on 29-11-2000.
Advocates appeared :
Rajiv L. Patil, for the petitioners.
V.S. Gokhale, A.G.P., for respondent Nos. 1 2.

Headnote:Section 28-A-Constitution of India, 1950, Article 14-Interpretation of statutes-Right to claim pro- rata-Additional compensation-No separate claim by owner-Enhancement at application of tenant-Landlords share not raised-As he did not seek enhancement-Held-Section 28-A of the Act does not say that all interested persons must make claim-If one co-owner is accorded benefit all should be allowed the same-It being a beneficial legislation it has to be construed harmoniously.-One of the interested persons can initiate the proceedings for redetermination of the amount of compensation under the said provisions and if such an application is moved, it is obligatory on the Collector to give notice to all the interested persons and provide them reasonable opportunity of being heard before making an award determining the amount of compensation payable in respect of the land in question. It would be preposterous to hold that an interested person, although entitled for a notice under sub-section (2) of the Act, before redetermination is done by the Collector, albeit at the instance of one or more interested persons, but such person who appears before the Collector in response to the notice received under sub-section (2) of the Act would be denuded of his right of being treated equally with other interested persons who only happen to be the applicants and responsible for initiating the proceedings. Such an interpretation cannot be countenanced at all, for even sub-section (3) would clearly throw light on the plain language of sub-section (3) of the Act, it would appear that any person interested in the land is entitled to carry the matter by way of reference. If the Legislature wanted to restrict the benefit under the said provision only to the person who had made application under sub-section (1), in that case, surely the Legislature would not have employed the expression "any person" in sub-section (3) but would have restricted to "aggrieved applicant". As the said provision obligates the Collector to give notice to all the interested persons before redetermination of the compensation; and once a person appears before the Collector pursuant to such notice, surely such a person cannot be deprived of the benefit of redetermination of the amount. Moreover, the redetermination of the amount is done in respect of market value of the land, in terms of the award passed in respect of the neighbouring land falling under the same notification under Section 4, but not with regard to the share of the person who makes the application under the said provisions. Once redetermination is made, it is irrelevant as to at whose instance the same has been done, but the Respondents/ authorities are under an obligation to give benefit of the said redetermination to all the interested persons irrespective of whether they had preferred any application or not.

JUDGMENT - A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.:---Rule. Returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the respondents waives service. Heard both the sides.

2. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 3rd January, 2000 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Metro Centre No. III, Panvel, Dist. Raigad rejecting the petitioners' claim for payment of 40% of the amount of award dated 5th February, 1998 passed by the respondent No. 1, which was towards their share for compensation as the landlords of the land which has been acquired.

3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the land in question is an agricultural land at village Karanjade, Taluka Panvel, Dist. Raigad. The said land was acquired for New Bombay Project in the year 1970. The acquisition proceedings culminated in the Award passed by the authorities on 19th September, 1986. Subsequently, since an award in respect of the neighbouring land, which was also acquired under the same notification, was passed on 21-12-1995, granting the market value higher than the rate granted to the petitioners under the Award dated 19th September, 1986, the tenant in respect of the suit land Shri Bhagat made an application under section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act on 18th May, 1996. The said application was entertained by the authorities and order was passed thereon on 5th February, 1998 accepting the plea of the said Shri Bhagat, the tenant in respect of the suit land. The Special Land Acquisition Officer by the said order redetermined the market value of the suit land and awarded additional amount equivalent to the market value granted in respect of the neighbouring land. Pursuant to the said redetermination dated 5th February, 1998, 60% of the redetermined amount has been disbursed to the said Shri Bhagat, tenant in respect of the suit land towards his share. Whereas, the remaining 40% has been retained by the authorities. The petitioners being the owners of the suit land, therefore, made an application on 10th December, 1999 praying that the amount of 40% which has been retained under the redetermination award dated 5th February, 1998 be made over to them. The said request of the petitioners has been rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer on the ground that the petitioners did not make application under section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act along with the tenant Shri Bhagat or independently hence they were not entitled for the said amount. It is this view taken by the Land Acquisition Officer which is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that once the redetermination has been done whether at the instance of the tenant or a co-owner, the additional benefit arising under the redetermination award should also enure to the benefit of other co-owner or tenant in respect of the said land, as the case may be. In support of this submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court dated 21st January, 1999 in Writ Petition No. 2550 of 1998 in the case of (Mahadeo Shankar Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra)1. It would be useful to refer to paragraph 5 of the said decision which reads thus :

"5. Mr. Sawant, learned Advocates appearing for the petitioners, brings to our notice the judgment of the Supreme Court in (A. Viswanatha Pillai v. Spl. Tahsildar for Land Acquisition)2, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 1966 in which it has been laid down that a co-owner as much as owner of the entire property as the sole owner of the property and that, unless a partition had taken place, the co-owner of the property whose property has been acquired would be entitled to receive compensation prorata. The Supreme Court further pointed out, "The State would plead no waiver nor omission by other co-owners to seek reference nor disentitle them to an award to the extent of their legal entitlement when in law they are entitled to". It is, therefore, obvious that when

Click Here to Read the rest of this document